The Sins of Greenwashing--A Good Idea Pushed Too Far
Based on this analysis, the report's authors conclude that "greenwashing is pervasive," posing a serious danger that consumers will be confused, misled, and ultimately driven to cynically disregard all environmental claims as meaningless or dishonest.
I have no doubt that greenwashing is, in fact, pervasive, and that many companies are guilty of exaggeration, obfuscation, and distortion when making environmental claims. (After all, the same is true in almost every other area of marketing and advertising.) But I also think the conclusions of the "Six Sins" report are just a trifle overblown, and that the authors have themselves succumbed to the temptation of stacking the deck in order to make a serious problem appear even more alarming--a bit of the kind of hype they accuse corporate marketers of practicing.
My doubts are based on what I see as the shaky basis of one of the "Six Sins of Greenwashing" outlined in the report. As summarized on Joel Makower's blog, the six sins are:
Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off--claims that suggest a product is "green" based on a single environmental attribute (the recycled content of paper, for example) or an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other important, or perhaps more important, environmental issues (such as the energy, climate, water, or forestry impacts of paper). Such claims aren't usually false, but paint a misleading picture of the product than a more complete environmental analysis would support. This was the most frequently committed "sin," made by 57 percent of all environmental claims examined.Now, some of the "sins" listed here are genuine misdemeanors. Obviously lying about a product's environmental qualities (the Sin of Fibbing) is an absolute no-no. And making product claims that are true but fundamentally meaningless (the Sin of Irrelevance) is almost equally dishonest. TerraChoice is dead-on in criticizing companies that are guilty of these sins. And they are also right to suggest that companies making environmental claims ought to provide clear definitions and proof of their claims. So far, so good.
Sin of No Proof (26 percent of all claims examined)--any claim that couldn't be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information, or by a reliable third-party certification. TerraChoice determined there to be "no proof" if supporting evidence was not accessible at either the point of purchase or at the product website.
Sin of Vagueness (11 percent of all claims examined)--any claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the intended consumer, such as "chemical free" or "all natural."
Sin of Irrelevance (4 percent of all claims examined)--claims that may be truthful but are unimportant and unhelpful for consumers, such as CFC-free products, since ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons have been outlawed since the late 1980s.
Sin of Lesser of Two Evils (1 percent of all claims examined)--environmental claims that may be true, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole, such as organic tobacco or green insecticides.
Sin of Fibbing (less than 1 percent of all claims examined)--claims that are simply false, typically by misusing or misrepresenting certification by an independent authority, when no such certification had been made.
My problem is with the first of TerraChoice's sins--the Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off. Here we get into murkier territory, where the "greenwashing" label seems much more dubious.
It's undoubtedly true that judging the "greenness" of a product or company is a complex, many-layered process. It's also true that, in the final analysis, the environmental impact of an organization can only be measured by examining a whole host of issues, including the ones TerraChoice mentions--energy use, effect on global warming, and so on.
But does that make it fair to describe any less-comprehensive environmental claim as "greenwashing"--in effect, accusing the company that makes it of dishonesty? I don't see it.
To use one of TerraChoice's own examples: If a paper company truthfully describes a product (copy paper, for example) as being made from recycled materials, but doesn't also report its policies and practices in regard to (say) water consumption, does that make the "recycled materials" claim greenwashing? I don't see how.
Here's an analogy. A wealthy businessperson donates a million dollars to a local art museum. Accordingly, his name is carved in the museum lobby on a list of "Generous Benefactors." Now, suppose that businessperson also happens to be a stingy employer--pays lousy, provides no health benefits. Does that falsify the claim that he gave generously to support the museum? Clearly not. He's not a very nice guy--but he did support the museum, and there's nothing dishonest or misleading about carving his name on the lobby wall.
In its Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off, TerraChoice is saying, in effect, that any product claim regarding the environment is illegitimate unless the company making the claim has also performed a complete analysis of all its environmental policies and practices, and can demonstrate that those policies and practices meet or exceed current "green" standards. That strikes me as unreasonable.
And since this "sin" is by far the most prevalent one in the TerraChoice study, representing fully 57 percent of the sins they uncovered, it seems to me that this bit of shaky logic seriously undermines the very sweeping conclusions trumpeted by the study's authors.
The soundbite version of the report seems to say, "We investigated 1,753 environmental claims, and found that 1,752 of them were lies." But in fact the report merely says, "We investigated 1,753 environmental claims, and found only one of the companies making these claims had provided the details of a complete self-analysis which demonstrated that their environmental practices were of a high quality."
That statement is a lot less dramatic-sounding--but it's more accurate.
Am I nit-picking? Maybe so. But I think there are real dangers in the slightly inaccurate soundbite version of the report. By implying that virtually every company making environmental claims is lying (or at least blatantly distorting the truth), TerraChoice is encouraging cynicism among consumers and the media. It is also (unintentionally, I'm sure) lending support to the extreme right-wing view of environmentalism as phony, self-serving hype whose real purpose is to mislead and exploit innocent citizens and consumers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of having companies perform complete and credible environmental audits, and I agree that activists and engaged consumers should examine the results of such audits when seeking eco-friendly companies to do business with. But it seems counter-productive to brand any company that doesn't yet meet this standard as a "greenwasher" deserving nothing but public contempt.
Rather than advancing the cause, pinning a "99 percent dishonest" label on companies' environmental efforts will encourage most consumers to throw up their hands in despair and simply disregard eco-claims in the future.
Labels: Greenwashing, Joel Makower, TerraChoice
Email blog entry to a friend
Comments
Add a comment
By 
, on
November 27, 2007 11:37 AM
The "6 Sins of Greenwashing" is a study based on a survey and investigation of factual data. I did not notice any facts in your criticism, only opinion. The truth is that Greenwashing is a big problem. The truth is that a staggering number of companies do lie or grossly exaggerate claims about their environmental achievements. The truth is that there needs to be consequences for companies that lie and misrepresent these facts.
Ultimately, the real harm of greenwashing is felt by companies who genuinely foster environmental innovation. Publishing facts that expose the practice of greenwashing is both valuable and productive. Writing personal opinions that have no factual basis are not.
By , on
November 28, 2007 5:04 AM
Anonymous: Of course, I did and do acknowledge that greenwashing is a real problem. But it's disingenuous to say that "The Six Sins of Greenwashing" is purely factual, while my criticism is purely opinion. Look at how the report defines "The Sin of the Hidden Trade-off": it says that the factual claim being made by a company is not false, but "paints a misleading picture." That is interpretation and judgment, not "fact." The authors of the report have a perfect right to make that interpretation. But I have an equally good right to offer a different one.
By 
Karl, on
November 28, 2007 6:07 AM
I also had a similar reaction when I first read the report. The report authors seem to commit one of their own 'sins' by 'painting a misleading picture' that all but one company are liars. The negative approach and attack mode of many environmental groups is childish and tiresome. I do agree that some companies misrepresent their products and the report reflects that fact. I would consider the bottom three 'sins' as serious but that only accounts for less than 7%. The sin of vagueness is in itself too vague to be measured. Example, the claim of 'all natural' by a food company is not vaque because it is strictly regulated by the FDA.
By , on
November 30, 2007 2:50 PM
I agree with the post -- the criticism is so harsh that it is counterproductive, since it does not distinguish between what I might consider intentional greenwashing and simply green naivete. And being naive is a very subjective thing...
By , on
December 3, 2007 8:47 PM
Karl: I really appreciate your comments on the Six Sins of Greenwashing report. As one of the co-authors of the report, I want to confess that the issues you raised mirror exactly the debate we had internally prior to publication.
Here's why we utlimately went with our more stringent definition of greenwashing -- we found consumers are being misled by accurate, but simplistic explanations of "green," including single-issue envirnomental claims.
Consumers are (un)intentionally being led to believe, for example, that paper products containing "just" recycled content are "as good" as paper products that contain post-consumer recycled content with the remaining fiber coming from forests that are certified as sustainably harvested and that are manufactured in a process chlorine free manner.
(Note: There are actually a whole host of environmental issues that are included in any good environmental standard for paper, but I'm trying to keep the example simple. Check out www.ecologo.org if you want to see the EcoLogo paper standard. You can also check out standards by Green Seal www.greenseal.org or the Chlorine Free Products Association www.chlorinefreeproducts.org)
An analogous question I used in my own thinking was -- what if the "larger" auto makers a few years ago began advertising the superiority of their auto safety because their cars had seat belts. What if the larger companies -- those with the biggest budgets -- promoted seatbelt safety as if it's all anyone really needs to worry about. Meanwhile, the smaller, more innovative auto companies -- the ones with airbags, anti-lock brakes, and crash avoidance sensors -- are having a tough time convincing people that there are other important safety considerations besides seatbelts.
In such a (ridiculous) scenario, the smaller, innovative companies will have a tough time succeeding because the larger, better funded companies are spending enormous sums of money encouraging folks that all they need to know is "buy a car with a seatbelt."
Now, I know this example fails because most of the car companies were equally as large. But, in the world of green products, it is frequently the smaller, less known companies that are developing the truly innovative products. They are the ones making investments in more environmentally preferable technologies and manufacturing more environmentally preferable products. Don't get me wrong, some of the larger companies are too. But some of the larger companies have the resources to stifle consumer understanding of the true environmental impact of products.
Promoting single environmental issues as though they are all that matter, if done to mislead consumers about the broader environmental impacts, counts as greenwashing in my book. In our study, we called this the "Sin of the Hidden Tradeoff."
Great post. Thank you for the challenging questions. Feel free to reach out directly if you want to talk off-line.
- Scot Case
By , on
December 7, 2007 10:13 AM
Scot--Thanks for the thoughtful response. This is such a great example of the kind of dialogue the web makes possible.
I appreciate the challenge you were facing in deciding how far to push your use of the term "greenwashing." As you know, my opinion is that you probably pushed it too far--but I can certainly see that this wasn't a black-and-white decision. In fact a strong case can be made that you've done us all a service by provoking exactly the kind of debate visible on this site, and making the issues of transparency and completeness in regard to green initiatives that much more salient.
Hopefully enough people will take the time to delve into the issues you've raised to make this, on balance, a positive experience, rather than one that might fuel cynicism or negativity.
Thanks again for writing.
By KW, on
December 8, 2007 9:31 AM
I think it is very important that we put outselves into the shoes of the consumer when look at issues like this. Though there are indeed increasingly aware and sophisticated consumers around the globe the majority make purchase decisions on remarkably little information. Advertising and marketing budgets are used to encourage this behaviour, simplifying the purchasing decision and making it an emotional one. Today, sustainability issues are premoninantly in the remit of corporate and marketing functions so it should be no surprise that it is these functions that are slapping on the green credentials with little thought to the bigger possibilities; it is not in their remit to do so - their job is largely to slap lipstick on the pig and if the colour of the year is green then green it is! I am not being cynical, this is just the reality we have to deal with. There is a gulf to be addressed (as this report indicates) and I for one am pleased to see the issue being raised. I also know labelling is not the "silver bullet" answer that the sponsoring authors may believe it to be, again there is a failure to factor in how and why consumers behave.
By Brendan Dunphy, on
January 23, 2008 10:00 AM
Great post. I had a similar reaction and frustration when I read the report. I would also add that TerraChoice's ulterior motive here is to push their own eco-label that would theoretically eliminate all of this purported “greenwashing.” So, it is in their best interest to enflame the issue.
Also, there’s an article about the FTC’s review of this issue in today’s Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112601940.html?nav=rss_business